Do you have the same complaint about the older movies and episodes that feature that same tech? In terms of tech, there's nothing in STID that hasn't been in Trek before.

Click to expand...

Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.

Click to expand...

Star Trek V: Neutral Zone to the galactic center in less than a day. Star Trek VI: Earth to the Neutral Zone in a few hours. Enterprise: Earth to Qo'nos in four days, despite being older and slower engines.

The only constant speed in ST is the speed of plot.

Click to expand...

Except the two cases of STAR TREK V and ENT (which were crap) have always been criticized as being off. Just because they made those errors doesn't mean you should keep fucking up. I'm sure the writers didn't care for the logic in it though especially in STID, because what mattered to them was having the Vengeance crash in San Fransisco rather than some other world. As for TUC, didn't they leave that ambiguous on how long it took to rendezvous? At least there was clearly a passage of time.

My point is, the filmmakers should at least try to be consistent about how basic functions work in the ST universe. Having them intentionally break it, just because others either fucked up or intentionally broke it, doesn't mean it's totally okay to be inconsistent from then on. That's where I stand.

Warp speeds in TOS never made sense, anyway. Neither did warp speeds in any other incarnation on screen, whether TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, or any of the films. That is to say, every incarnation had examples of travel times at stated warp speeds, that were, even in the most favorable light, eyebrow raising.

Dunno about you, but the filmmakers seem to have a whole different idea of what warp speed is. It more or less resembles the Star Wars lightspeed where in that universe characters could easily escape their own galaxy. Having the Enterprise go from Kronos to Earth in a matter of seconds is some pretty serious speed right there. The odd thing is that they didn't intentionally go out of warp, they were broken out of it by the Vengeance firing at them. So they were gonna go further? Doesn't make much sense there.

The only time Trek ever showed starships going at such great speeds were in certain circumstances like with Nomad, the Kelvans, the Traveler, The Caretaker, slipstream drive, ect.

Click to expand...

Star Trek V: Neutral Zone to the galactic center in less than a day. Star Trek VI: Earth to the Neutral Zone in a few hours. Enterprise: Earth to Qo'nos in four days, despite being older and slower engines.

The only constant speed in ST is the speed of plot.

Click to expand...

Except the two cases of STAR TREK V and ENT (which were crap) have always been criticized as being off. Just because they made those errors doesn't mean you should keep fucking up. I'm sure the writers didn't care for the logic in it though especially in STID, because what mattered to them was having the Vengeance crash in San Fransisco rather than some other world. As for TUC, didn't they leave that ambiguous on how long it took to rendezvous? At least there was clearly a passage of time.

My point is, the filmmakers should at least try to be consistent about how basic functions work in the ST universe. Having them intentionally break it, just because others either fucked up or intentionally broke it, doesn't mean it's totally okay to be inconsistent from then on. That's where I stand.

Click to expand...

Reboot: Means all it has to be in consistent within it's version of events. As such, STID is consistent with the tech shown in ST09.

They don't have match 1:1 all the inconsistent technical and minutia details from the prior Treks. It's a new universe, with its on set of rules.

I'd be fine with that, if the films didn't insist on saying that they're connected to the older Trek. Heck, I would have definitely suggested making the 2009 film a complete reboot. As in no Nimoy or any other references to Trek that is known from 1966-2005. I would have made its own completely new universe with no ties.

For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.

For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

Click to expand...

I think Scott saying he'd only been off the ship one day kind of kills any argument about the travel time being anymore than a day or two tops.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.

Click to expand...

Starships have moved at the speed of plot since 1966. Why should Abrams change that now?

For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

Click to expand...

I think Scott saying he'd only been off the ship one day kind of kills any argument about the travel time being anymore than a day or two tops.

Click to expand...

Whoops, you're right. Still, enough time could've passed off screen for everyone on the ship to get at least a nap and for Kirk to go below decks to get a chicken sandwich and a coffee.

For what it's worth, I watched the movie again last night, and it's very possible to explain more time passed between going to Earth and Kronos than was shown on screen. There are cuts where some more time could've easily passed between the events being shown.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot. It's as patented a Trek writer's move as having the transporter broken or unable to be used at the most inopportune moments just to heighten the drama.

Click to expand...

The way it's done when they're going from Earth to Kronos, I could believe that a lot of time had passed on their journey because of the way scenes played out and you could assume a lot had happened between Spock's praising of Kirk's decision and him confronting Carol about her status on board. However, what disproves that is when they're heading back everything happens quickly without implying that much time had passed.

Besides, in the past a captain's log was all you needed to show that time had passed in their travels and at the same time keep the pace going.

It's a valid opinion if I see a picture of an actress in her underwear (apparently that's Carol Marcus?) and my first reaction is that she needs to eat a sandwich (seriously, she looks like a toothpick).

Click to expand...

Are Americans now so use to only seeing other fat Americans (yes, I'm a fat American) that we no longer know what a healthy body looks like?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't know what Americans know. I'm not American. I just happen to think the actress looks too thin.

I've also stated that I intend to see STID. It's available "on demand" and so one of these days I'll sit down and watch it.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take a hell of a lot to accomplish that. I honestly don't think Abrams et. al are up to the job. When it comes to Star Trek movies, I'm hard to please. The last ST movie that accomplished that was Star Trek IV.

Click to expand...

Is this a serious post? You are flat out deciding to put off watching the movie and are making judgements about it, claiming you're willing to be proven wrong, yet actively refusing to watch it. Yes, "some day' you'll watch it. How about today since, today is the day you're posting opinions about it?

Click to expand...

Unless I include smileys indicating I'm joking, or some other indicator of humor or sarcasm, yes, my post is serious.

We have ONE movie theatre in town, and it's not in one of the better-traveled areas. I don't drive, and there's no bus service that's close enough there to allow for a safe walk after dark. I'm not willing to risk being robbed or worse just so I can satisfy this forum's insistence that I should see these movies immediately, instead of waiting for a time when I can see them safely in my own home.

Secondly, I'm not much of a TV-watcher, either. I got out of the habit some years back and never really got back into it. I watch ONE show that's on daily (as in 5 days a week) and TWO shows that are on weekly. I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Therefore, you need to re-read my first post above (this time, while switching on your "reading comprehension"). I SAID I was going to watch this movie. But I will watch it at MY convenience, NOT yours.

I've also stated that I intend to see STID. It's available "on demand" and so one of these days I'll sit down and watch it.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take a hell of a lot to accomplish that. I honestly don't think Abrams et. al are up to the job. When it comes to Star Trek movies, I'm hard to please. The last ST movie that accomplished that was Star Trek IV.

Click to expand...

Is this a serious post? You are flat out deciding to put off watching the movie and are making judgements about it, claiming you're willing to be proven wrong, yet actively refusing to watch it. Yes, "some day' you'll watch it. How about today since, today is the day you're posting opinions about it?

Click to expand...

Unless I include smileys indicating I'm joking, or some other indicator of humor or sarcasm, yes, my post is serious.

We have ONE movie theatre in town, and it's not in one of the better-traveled areas. I don't drive, and there's no bus service that's close enough there to allow for a safe walk after dark. I'm not willing to risk being robbed or worse just so I can satisfy this forum's insistence that I should see these movies immediately, instead of waiting for a time when I can see them safely in my own home.

Secondly, I'm not much of a TV-watcher, either. I got out of the habit some years back and never really got back into it. I watch ONE show that's on daily (as in 5 days a week) and TWO shows that are on weekly. I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Therefore, you need to re-read my first post above [highlight](this time, while switching on your "reading comprehension")[/highlight]. I SAID I was going to watch this movie. But I will watch it at MY convenience, NOT yours.

Click to expand...

FKnight appears to have understood perfectly well what you wrote (note the bits I've placed in bold above). The "reading comprehension" dig is more problematic, as it's a well-known way of trying to stay under the radar while calling someone stupid.

Is this a serious post? You are flat out deciding to put off watching the movie and are making judgements about it, claiming you're willing to be proven wrong, yet actively refusing to watch it. Yes, "some day' you'll watch it. How about today since, today is the day you're posting opinions about it?

Click to expand...

Unless I include smileys indicating I'm joking, or some other indicator of humor or sarcasm, yes, my post is serious.

We have ONE movie theatre in town, and it's not in one of the better-traveled areas. I don't drive, and there's no bus service that's close enough there to allow for a safe walk after dark. I'm not willing to risk being robbed or worse just so I can satisfy this forum's insistence that I should see these movies immediately, instead of waiting for a time when I can see them safely in my own home.

Secondly, I'm not much of a TV-watcher, either. I got out of the habit some years back and never really got back into it. I watch ONE show that's on daily (as in 5 days a week) and TWO shows that are on weekly. I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Therefore, you need to re-read my first post above [highlight](this time, while switching on your "reading comprehension")[/highlight]. I SAID I was going to watch this movie. But I will watch it at MY convenience, NOT yours.

Click to expand...

FKnight appears to have understood perfectly well what you wrote (note the bits I've placed in bold above). The "reading comprehension" dig is more problematic, as it's a well-known way of trying to stay under the radar while calling someone stupid.

That won't fly here. Please don't repeat it.

Click to expand...

I stated I intended to watch the movie. FKnight contradicted that statement, saying I was refusing to watch it.

If his problem was that I refused to watch it at a time of his choosing, he should have said so, rather than claiming that I said I wasn't going to watch it at all.

And of course, there's this old chestnut: The ship travels at the speed of the plot.

Click to expand...

For my money, a lazy writing habit that became part of what stultified the original Trek style. The "speed of drama" conceit means you can never tell convincing stories in your setting in which you can derive drama from a sense of place and distance: for example, it effectively closes off the kind of drama we see in The Hunt for Red October, where everybody is working against a clock that consists of the Red October's travel time from Poliarny Inlet to within launch distance of America's eastern seaboard. (I mean, you can still attempt stories like this, it's just a lot harder to really sell them in a setting where everything is next to everything and ships "move at the speed of drama.")

I know Old Gene had only himself to blame for this; Trek was developing rubber rules about warp factor before the original series was even finished, because "the speed of drama" is a quicker, easier, more seductive path for the writer's room to take. But they really would have been better off taking Roddenberry's original scale and just sticking to it, and would have lost little by doing so.

[EDIT: Or, since sci-fi seems perpetually embarrassed at the prospect of taking its setting "too seriously" -- a bad habit that Roddenberry initially aspired to shake, but only ever very partially managed actually to get free of -- you can look at it from a different angle. If your ships move "at the speed of drama," how dramatically effective is it really to present the appearance that distance is effectively meaningless in your setting and the Klingon homeworld looks to be a few hours' easy jaunt from Earth? Moving at the speed of drama, you still need some rough sense of speeds and distance that actually does heighten drama.]

I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Click to expand...

It was last month and for many months before that. Perhaps you should check again (since you're already paying for Netflix, it isn't going to cost you anything), if, of course, you feel inclined to do so.

Edit: Oops. I read nuTrek literally--the 09 movie is on Canadian Netflix. The latest one is not there yet. My mistake.

I occasionally watch stuff on Netflix (most recently the Firefly series, which I really enjoyed), but nuTrek isn't available on the Canadian version of Netflix.

Click to expand...

It was last month and for many months before that. Perhaps you should check again (since you're already paying for Netflix, it isn't going to cost you anything), if, of course, you feel inclined to do so.

Edit: Oops. I read nuTrek literally--the 09 movie is on Canadian Netflix. The latest one is not there yet. My mistake.

Click to expand...

I've just checked. The list of Star Trek that's available reads thusly:

Star Trek The Next Generation (7 seasons)
Generations
First Contact
Insurrection
The Motion Picture
Nemesis
The Wrath of Khan
The Undiscovered Country
The Search for Spock

A search for the 2009 movie says it is unavailable. But I was able to see it on the Space Channel some time back.

For my money, a lazy writing habit that became part of what stultified the original Trek style. The "speed of drama" conceit means you can never tell convincing stories in your setting in which you can derive drama from a sense of place and distance: for example, it effectively closes off the kind of drama we see in The Hunt for Red October, where everybody is working against a clock that consists of the Red October's travel time from Poliarny Inlet to within launch distance of America's eastern seaboard. (I mean, you can still attempt stories like this, it's just a lot harder to really sell them in a setting where everything is next to everything and ships "move at the speed of drama.")

Click to expand...

The film The Hunt for Red October has more than its fair share of errors, when it comes to the positions and velocities of the various subs throughout the film.

Continuity. They didn't have to tie in with classic Trek at all, but in making their "not just for Trekkies" movies they've included more nods and references than any prior Star Trek. Not only to the episodes and movies, but they've drawn on novels, comics, old technical manuals and even some videogames and ancient fanlore. It's completely insane how much they've managed to cram in. There are almost two movies running parallel - the one the casual viewer sees, and the one the hardcore Trekkie sees, where everything has extra significance.

Click to expand...

I'd like to add, that a lot of these grievances, like transwarp transporters and such, at least to me, seem like throwaway plot devices simply to get you going on the story without bogging it down.

In TNG, there would have had to be this huge explanation riddled with like 10 mins of treknobabble to paint a "logical" working of such a device. The writers didn't want to do that, instead used it simply to get from point A to point B in the story.

I agree with a lot of the complaints, but willing to overlook them because the movies are pretty fun. I wish someone would have tried doing this in the TNG movies. We might have gotten a few decent ones instead of the dreck we got.

I agree with the quote that nuTrek is really trying to be mass appeal Trek, catering to younger audiences, and they are trying to be as faithful to the original material without hurting the style that attracts the younger people.

I admit that, while I liked TOS, it wasn't my favorite series. I might be more pissed if nuTrek had been a TNG reboot. Reimagine Data or the Enterprise D, and there'll be hell to pay!

The film The Hunt for Red October has more than its fair share of errors, when it comes to the positions and velocities of the various subs throughout the film.

Click to expand...

None that perceptibly affect the geographic framing and premise of the story that I can recall. (I'm not talking about minor continuity errors like subs appearing a few yards closer in-shot than we're told they are, or Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin having a few seconds too long to chat about books after being told "twenty seconds to impact." Stuff like that is penny-ante, the equivalent of complaining about the number of buttons on somebody's coat.)

Neither am I. I'm talking about things that made me snicker on first viewing in the theater, but which are just the sorts of stuff that's typical of a film that's the product of writers' imaginations, jazzed up for theatrics, and not cold hard reality. Even the overwhelming majority of films based on true events don't represent what actually happened; some aspects of reality get altered in the translation to the big screen. It's not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but rather, it's just that what you see on the screen is at best an approximation that is responsive at least as much to its own rules as it is to those of reality.

Two examples in The Hunt for Red October come to my mind. The most significant is probably that, with a range of 5,000 miles, the missiles of the Red October don't need to be launched close to the American coast at all, to hit American targets. This is an example of the movie being responsive to its own rules rather than those of reality.

But, my favorite, that took me right out of the movie on first viewing, is that in the middle of its cat-and-mouse game with the Red October, when the two subs are shown running silently side by side, the Dallas surfaces to pick up Ryan from the helicopter, and yet we are supposed to believe that the Red October can't detect any of that.

The Hunt for Red October is, overall, quite entertaining. However, ultimately, it's just a film, and it's certainly not a model of filmmaking with enough fidelity to reality to command a total suspension of disbelief.